Partly allowed¶16

Deshiram Kamar v. Stateof Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Sept 2024CRA/251/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (DB, 18.09.2024), CRA 251/2019: murder conviction downgraded to culpable homicide — sudden provocation, Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, single blow, no premeditation; Section 307 conviction dropped as injuries to Sato Bai (PW-02) simple; Section 323 IPC one-year R.I.; sentence for Section 304 Part II IPC limited to period already undergone (~8 yrs 8 months); appeal partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC set aside; appellant convicted instead under Section 304 Part II IPC with sentence of the period already undergone (about 8 years 8 months) and under Section 323 IPC for one year R.I. ¶16

Deshiram Kamar Vs Stateof Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant is liable under Section 302 IPC for the homicidal death of Sumitra, or whether the killing — a single blow delivered in sudden provocation after the deceased first beat him with a club, without premeditation — warrants conviction instead under Section 304 Part II IPC on the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

Because the deceased first assaulted the appellant with a club, provoking him suddenly, and because there was no premeditation, only one injury was inflicted and no undue advantage or cruelty was shown (the appellant even carried her for treatment), the appellant is not liable under Section 302 IPC; at best he is convictable under Section 304 Part II IPC with the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The homicidal nature of the deceased's death is confirmed: per Dr. G.S. Dhruw (PW-13) the cause of death was coma due to head injury, homicidal in nature.

¶9

Key takeaways

There is no doubt that it was the appellant who authored the crime, so the trial Court was right in convicting him for the death of the deceased; likewise, it is not disputed that the assault on Sato Bai (PW-02) was caused by him.ratio¶12
The injuries sustained by Sato Bai (PW-02) were simple in nature (Dr. G.S. Dhruw, PW-13, MLC Ex.P-22); consequently no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out for the injuries sustained by her.ratio¶14
The appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC is set aside; he is instead convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC with sentence of the period already undergone (about 8 years 8 months) and under Section 323 IPC for one year R.I.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRA No. 251 of 2019 (Chhattisgarh HC, Division Bench, decided 18.09.2024): While affirming that the appellant authored the homicidal head-injury death of his cousin Sumitra (single lacerated wound near the left ear; death by coma due to head injury, homicidal) and the assault on Sato Bai (PW-02), the Bench held that the killing — one blow delivered in sudden provocation after the deceased first struck him with a club, without premeditation and without undue advantage or cruelty — attracted Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Conviction under Section 302 IPC was therefore set aside and reduced to Section 304 Part II IPC, with sentence of the period already undergone (about 8 years 8 months). As Sato Bai's injuries were found simple in nature, the Section 307 IPC conviction was also set aside and replaced with conviction under Section 323 IPC for one year R.I. Appeal partly allowed.

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶3

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT Date: 2024.09.19 17:35:37 +0530

¶4

2024:CGHC:36402-DB

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶8

Deshiram Kamar S/o- Ramuram Kumar, Aged about 23 years, R/o Village-Godalboi, P.S.-Peeparchedi, DistrictGariyaband (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh through Arakshi Centre, Peeparchedi, District-Gariyaband (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Appellant :- Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate /PL appointed through C.G. High Court Legal Committee.

¶14

For Respondent-State :- Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel

¶15

Lawyer.

¶16

Division Bench

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judgment On Board

¶19

(18.09.2024)

¶20

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶21

Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and

¶22

order of sentence dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, District-Gariyaband

¶23

¶24

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶25

(C.G.) in S.T. No. 28/2016 by which the appellant has

¶26

been convicted as under:-

¶27

Conviction Sentence
U/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 500/- in default of
payment of fine further S.I. for 2 months.
U/s 307 of IPC R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.
500/- in default of payment of
fine further S.I. for 2 months
Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶28

That the case as projected by the prosecution is that one Dheluram Gond (PW-7) informed the police authority, that on 21.01.2016, at about 09:00 p.m. in the courtyard of his house when he was sitting with his family, the appellant came and told him that at around 11:00 p.m. in his village, his cousin Sumitra (now deceased) along with his mother Satobai (PW-02) were also present in the house of Dheluram Gond (PW-07) where some function were organized, thereafter, some petty dispute arose between the appellant and his cousin Sumitra (now deceased). At first, the deceased beaten the appellant with a small club upon which the appellant assaulted the deceased by burning piece of wooden stick

¶29

¶30

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶31

and thereafter he has also assaulted the mother of the deceased, who came to intervene the quarrel, thereafter the appellant carried the deceased with him on his shoulder, took her his house where after two days the deceased died. Merg vide Ex.P/10 was reported by Dhelu Ram Gond (PW-07) and on the basis of Merg, FIR vide Ex.P-7 was registered. The dead body sent for autopsy vide Ex. P-21. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-08. Memorandum Statement was recorded vide Ex.P-05. Based on his memorandum seizure memo was prepared vide Ex.P-06 and a burnt wooden stick was recovered. Spot Map vide Ex.P-09 was prepared. The burnt wooden stick sent to FSL and FSL report vide Ex.P-20 was prepared.

¶32

After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC as the appellant has murdered Sumitra and has also assaulted Sato Bai (PW-02).

¶33

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. S tatement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against

¶34

¶35

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶36

him in the evidence brought on record, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶37

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record has convicted the appellant as mentioned in the previous paragraphs of this judgment.

¶38

Mr. Basant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence in question. He further submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the appellant has not committed any offence for which the appellant can be convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC. He further submits that on the date of incident i.e. on 20.01.2016 at about 11:00 p.m. when the appellant came to the house of Dheluram Gond (PW-7) the deceased had beaten him with a club which raised his anger and without premeditation and under heat of anger, he assaulted the deceased. When he was abused by Sato Bai (PW-02) he gave some blow to her. The appellant has not committed any offence but due to sudden provocation without any intention he has assaulted the deceased and further

¶39

¶40

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶41

taken her to his house for giving some treatment to her which goes to show that there was no intension to cause death of the deceased. Further, he has not inflicted injuries to Sato Bai (PW-02) which was dangerous to life. Hence, even if total case of the prosecution is taken into consideration. At the behest offence under Sections 326 and 323 of the IPC would be made out. The appellant is in jail since 23.01.2016 as such he has completed undergone 8 years and 8 months of imprisonment as such he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶42

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellant, it was argued that the appellant has committed murder of his cousin and further attempted the life of his aunt Sato Bai (PW-02), he has caused injuries by burnt wooden stick as such the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant which is not required to be interfered with. Thus, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶43

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records minutely.

¶44

¶45

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶46

From the evidence of Dr. G.S. Dhruw (PW-13) it appears that the deceased has suffered one single lacerated wound present on the outer part of the left ear. From which blood was oozing out and there was redness present in the orbital area of both eyes and upon inter examination in the inner portion of head, there was bleeding, the cause of death is coma due to head injury which is homicidal in nature as such from the evidence of Doctor the homicidal death of the deceased is not disputed and we confirm the same. So far as the injury sustained by Sato Bai (PW-02) is concerned. From the evidence of Dr. G.S. Dhruw (PW-13) who has examined Sato Bai (PW-02) by MLC vide Ex.P-22 has found on lacerated wound in his front part of the head. The aforesaid injuries were simple in nature.

¶47

From the perusal of evidence as also from the perusal of the documents it seems that it was the appellant who has committed the offence as per evidence given by Shivlal Thakur (PW-01), injured witness Sato Bai (PW-02) who has stated that on the date of incident the appellant came there and on pity dispute he has assaulted the deceased and also assaulted her. However, after the incident he took the deceased on his shoulder for treatment and thereafter after two days she died.

¶48

¶49

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶50

Likewise, the other witnesses have also who have stated the same line of evidence though they were said witnesses.

¶51

From these evidences there is no doubt that it was the appellant who has authored the crime and as such the trial Court is right in convicting the appellant for the death of deceased. So far as assault given to Sato Bai (PW-02) is concerned it is also not in dispute that it was caused by appellant.

¶52

Now, it has to be seen that what offence has been committed by the appellant. For this evidence of Sato Bai (PW-02) is important who is an injured witness. She has stated that due to some petty dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased in which the deceased has firstly assaulted the appellant with a club which enraged the appellant and in a sudden provocation he assaulted the deceased, however, after assault he took her for treatment to his house which goes to show that there was no premeditation and in sudden provocation he has assaulted the deceased. Only one injury was given by the appellant to the deceased which also goes to suggest that he has not taken any undue advantage and behaved in any cruel manner as such in our opinion the appellant is

¶53

¶54

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶55

not liable for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. At the best, he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of the IPC giving benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC.

¶56

So far as injury caused to injured witness Sato Bai (PW02) is concerned. According to Dr. G.S. Dhruw (PW-13), he has stated that the injury sustained by Sato Bai (PW02) were simple in nature as such in our view no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out for the injuries sustained by Sato Bai (PW-02).

¶57

Accordingly, we set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and instead of, he is being convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC as well as under Section 323 of the IPC. The appellant has undergone sentence of about 8 year 8 months as such he is being sentenced under Section 304 part II of IPC for the period already undergone by him. Further for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC he is convicted for one year of R.I.

¶58

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant is partly allowed as indicated above.

¶59

¶60

CRA No. 251 of 2019

¶61

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and the copy of this judgment be supplied to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶62

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶63

Raghu Jat

Deshiram Kamar v. Stateof Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deshiram Kamar v. Stateof Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharamsingh Harijan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Reman Singh Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deo Lal Dhruva Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Kumar Khunte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Bajrang Power and Ispat Limited

Shankar Nag Vs State of Chhattisgarh